Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the window-based logic (month inside start..end) rather than peak-based, and mentions that it includes counts of local published farms listing each species. This provides meaningful behavioral insight. However, it does not specify whether species with zero farms are included, the response format, or any pagination, which would be useful for a tool with no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a critical clarification (window vs. peak) that is not obvious from the name or schema. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the description covers the main purpose and the window logic, it leaves out the exact response structure (e.g., list of species with counts, ordering, inclusion of zero-count species). Since there is no output schema, this missing detail could lead an agent to assume an incorrect return format. The description is adequate but not complete enough to guarantee correct invocation without additional assumptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (month with default and range, province with accepted formats). The tool description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema states; it only restates the default month. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Species in their harvest window') with a resource (Canadian province) and an optional month parameter, plus the key output detail (count of farms listing each species). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on seasonal availability rather than general farm/search operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it (when you need species in season for a province and month) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it. It does clarify the window-based logic versus peak-based, which is useful, but there is no explicit routing or exclusionary guidance relative to the sibling tools like search_farms or list_goods.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.